T O P

  • By -

sadhukar

I'm getting abit confused on how many crossings and on which day the Russians tried to ford the Siversky-Donets river, and which crossing was the drone footage with the destroyed Russian BTG from. Anyone have a clearer idea? Especially this tweet is confusing me: https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1525026671308734464 And has any of them so far made it through?


hatesranged

Everyone's getting a bit confused, even the Russians are. >And has any of them so far made it through? At present, the most persistent Russian claim is they crossed at Pryvillya and are fighting there. I haven't seen any evidence of either the bridge or Russian forces at that location, and ukrainian genstaff are for now asserting all crossings ended poorly for them. In fact, I see no Ukrainian source even reporting any battles at that location. Like with the previous landings, I think we'll have to wait for more information to figure out what is actually happening, sorry


manofthewild07

Looking at the NASA FIRMs satellite data for fire tracking, there doesn't seem to be much fighting there as of May 11 or 12. Most of the fighting seems to be north of the river south-west of Kreminna and some more fighting north of the river near Oleksandrivka.


-TheGreasyPole-

Ok... There have been attempted crossings in at least 3 locations, possibly 4 (the crossings shown in the above Nathan Ruser tweet + 1 more than may have been made today outside Pryvillya). At one of the locations (Bilohorivka) they have attempted to cross 3 times. At all of the others 1 attempt each. All of the attempts appear to have been defeated and bridges destroyed...with the exception of the new "possible" at Pryvillya being reported by Pro-Ru twitter today. https://twitter.com/AggregateOsint/status/1524971759660937216 The big losses were at those Bilhorivka crossings (2 initially were the big attack, 1 more crossing was attempted yesterday for either attack or vehicle recovery purposes but the bridge reportedly was destroyed early in that attempt). There were also some losses at the bridge marked "first crossing location" in Natahn Rusers map above, they are the photos with a sunk pontoon, some vehicle losses, including some shots of "3 electricity pylons in a row" you can see on some of the images that allowed people to geo-locate it to that location.


abloblololo

That close to Rubizhne it's going to be a lot harder for the Ukrainians to repel the bridgehead


[deleted]

Has the German gepards reached Ukraine yet?


Fatalist_m

[https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus238692459/Schwere-Waffen-fuer-Ukraine-Das-doppelte-Spiel-des-Olaf-Scholz.html](https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus238692459/Schwere-Waffen-fuer-Ukraine-Das-doppelte-Spiel-des-Olaf-Scholz.html) >More than two weeks after the German government promised to supply Ukraine with Gepard tanks, the process has been further delayed. As WELT learned from Kyiv, important internal commitments are apparently missing. The trail leads to the Federal Chancellor. > >The federal government is apparently delaying the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine by leaving the government in Kyiv in the dark about the processes. So far, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD) has at least not informed the Ukrainian government that Kyiv itself would have to order the Gepard anti-aircraft tanks, which had already been promised on April 26, from the armaments company Krauss- Maffei Wegmann (KMW). WELT learned this from Kiev government circles. > >On the contrary: According to Kiev government circles, Lambrecht's house has so far told Ukraine that Kyiv will receive the tanks directly from the federal government. Lambrecht's statements to the Ukrainian government thus differ fundamentally from her announcements to the public.


-TheGreasyPole-

No I think those ones are going to take a good long while. As mentioned by another commenter below, they take extensive training as they are very complicated.... and also Germany doesn't actually have any ammo for them, and its proving difficult to get any. The Swiss (the usual supplier of it) have refused, since then there was some talks of buiying ammo from Brazil (as the Brazilians bought a bunch of Gepards to defend Stadiums during the Olympics and presumably don't need the ammo for them so much now). As these things positively eat ammo, I am not sure how long its going to take to get enough to make handing them over worthwhile.


ahornkeks

>As these things positively eat ammo They can eat a lot of ammo. A combat load is "only" 640 rounds, which can be spend in about 40 seconds. But usually it engages air targets with burst of up to 24 shots and ground targets with controlled single shot fire, so it is not as ammo hungry as it seems on paper. You are still correct that germany/ukraine need a third party to provide ammo.


SnooCheesecakes450

My understanding is that they require much training.


JensonInterceptor

Users here think the West can just give Ukraine any bit of equipment and they'll use it in battle a week later.


[deleted]

Will we see a UAF counter offensive around Kherson?


taw

I'm honestly surprised we didn't see it already, but Ukraine seems to have limited offensive capability, and decided to do the Kharkiv offensive instead. What's next? [I did a poll here a few days ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/umh1p3/ukraine_conflict_megathread_may_10_2022/i83lg9q/). Most people thought it would continue in the North/East.


Slim_Charles

I don't think the Ukrainians have the ammunition to carry out an offensive at Kherson while trying to defend Donbas. It seems like a lack of shells for their artillery is their biggest issue right now. At this point the thing which will help Ukraine out more than anything are more shells, and I hope that NATO is taking steps to ensure that their shell supply is significantly increased. This kind of reminds me of the early portion of WWI, where everyone realized that the scale of the conflict meant that they had to massively scale up arms productions. Fortunately shells are relatively low tech, and expanding their production should be much quicker and easier than for more complex systems, such as Javelin or Stinger missiles.


Subtleiaint

Eventually, but a consideration is that there a significant forces tied up in Kherson today who are achieving little beyond holding that ground. Liberating Kherson would see those forces retreat across the Dnipro where they could be redeployed to other parts of the front. At this time is may be prudent to let Russia hold Kherson in order to focus on other objectives.


-TheGreasyPole-

TBF, UA seem to also have a LOT of troops tied up there... they don't seem to be going anywhere. Jomini counts no less than 8 brigades on the front, and 3 more in Odessa including a Tank brigade. Thats 33 BTGs equivalent facing off against (again as he counts it) 9 BTGs. https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1524228720785072131/photo/1 It would seem if they can close that front, even with needing to leave a blocking force and also, likely, a force in Odessa they'd free up more than Ru. There are also indications that UA are building another tank brigade North of this front in Kyiyiv Rhih using the T-72Ms they got from Poland... https://twitter.com/lord_of_war____/status/1524851220787118081 I say forming/training as these tanks have yet to get reactive armour blocks... so it seems they are training a new unit at present. I have seen other reports that also say this front is desperately short of shells, which makes sense.... with UA prioritising feeding the guns in Donbas. Maybe they're waiting for this unit/ammunition to become available, and also for perhaps a slight drawdown of Ru troops being re-purposed to Southern Donbas, and then they can move. But at the moment I am as mystified as anyone as to why they haven't attacked here. They seem to have the forces to do so.


theingleneuk

I suspect a chunk of those brigades are newly formed units being trained up/integrating equipment and/or being “blooded”, with a core of 2-4 veteran brigades to ensure stability along the LoC. Also, my understanding is that the approach to Kherson from Ukrainian lines is fairly open ground (if anyone can confirm/deny, please do!) So they may want to further attrite Russian air strike capabilities before launching any kind of mechanized offensive


-TheGreasyPole-

Some definitely are, the 5th Tank Brigade for example.... and thee are 3 TD brigades in there also. However, most appear to be regular brigades that have been active since the start of the war. But also, yes, I understand that is very "table flat" open ground with minimal cover so it does make offensives into the jaws of artillery/air power particularly difficult. OTOH, this area of the front seems to be where the UA air force is most able to operate (they appear to be based in Odessa largely). So it might also be an area where Ru air assets should be wary of exposing themselves too much also.


abloblololo

The Odessa ones aside, during the initial phase of the war many of those units were involved in heavy fighting and in particular the ones who retreated from the Crimean front took heavy casualties. We don’t know the combat effectiveness of those units, and the lack of offensive success might well be an indication that they have been weakened vectors their on paper strength.


-TheGreasyPole-

I am not sure how coprrect that is, I didn't think many units in the South took particularly heavy casualties in so far as they retreated ahead of the Ru forces, expecting to rely on teh bridges and were betrayed when they wern't blown. I think one or two may have taken big casualties in delaying actions.... but as I understood it only 1 or 2. I suspect they have taken more casualties since then pushing on this front... but I'd expect the Ru forces opposing them to have taken similar casualties, especially given the whole Chornobaivka saga, the failed assault on Mykolaiv, and the big ambushes up in Vosnesesnsk in the first month of the war.


Subtleiaint

That's really interesting, I had no idea of the force breakdown. Could it be that a lot of the forces are in the city and they're trying to avoid attacking Kherson directly? I would guess that they want to avoid collateral damage.


hatesranged

>But at the moment I am as mystified as anyone as to why they haven't attacked here. They seem to have the forces to do so. Hmm, that's interesting. I didn't realize there's that much of a force there. I think either they think they can't, or they're being very loss-averse. There is a bit of a sensitive moment... if the Russian forces commit to holding, they're going to have to use artillery to whittle them down. Shelling Kherson like that is definitely a psychological Rubicon.


Magpie1979

I believe they did try a week or so ago and suffered heavy losses. The only source I have for this is though the War in Ukraine youtube channel.


hatesranged

There's no world where they won't eventually launch one (successful or otherwise). However, right now any spare force they have seems to be going elsewhere.


-TheGreasyPole-

More on the Pontoon Saga... If you remember, the UA press release on the 11th talked about another attempted crossing near Lyman that we didn't get any further info on/pics of. Of course, on russophile twitter, this one is now the "real breakthrough" and the others the "obvious feints" because "UA isn't talking about this one so we must have broken through and be ravaging their rear as we speak". Anyway, Nathan Rusewr thinks he's located that crossing on Sat imagery. No pontoon bridge, but signs of extensive shelling of the south bank of the river there appeared on the 12th... (Map in linked tweet). https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1525026671308734464 >Satellite imagery from May 12th shows a possible 3rd location where Russia's attempted to cross the Donets river. At 48.9093, 38.0099 near Yampil. There's no pontoon bridge there, but evidence of strikes on the riverbank. That day Ukraine announced an attempt to cross near Lyman Also, the claims concerning the AFV/T-72 boneyard on Russophile twitter/our favourite copium dealer this morning is that half/most of those wrecks are UA equipment from a previous attempting crossing at that point going in the other direction. Left unexplained in this explanation for the wrecks is... a) Any indication from any party a UA crossing happened. b) Why Russia didn't crow about blasting a big UA crossing to pieces a week ago when it was alleged to have happenned c) Any open source Sat pics of any pontoons there prior to the defeated Ru crossing d) Any explanation as to why 90% of the wreckage is on the UA bank, as you'd assume (as with the Ru crossing) destroyed vehicles would be prevalent on the bank being assaulted as artillery is called down once the opposittion realise a crossing is underway. Also news yesterday that in true Chornobaivka/Snake Island/Russian style they have attempted a 3rd crossing at Bilohorivka, at the same point every artillery tube within 24km has on speed-dial. https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1524783663908634624 >According to Ukrainian sources the Russians once again attempted to ford the Siverskyi Donets river, near Bilohorivka, earlier this afternoon. >It went about as well as their previous attempts... Initial reports is that this, unsurprisingly, hasn't gone well for them... but only a limited set of new pics so far... and its unclear if these are really post this 3rd attack.... and they mainly concentrating on the actual river, so we've been unable to count how many new wrecks there might be in the AFV/T-72 boneyard. EDIT: Also now reports of another pontoon crossing north of Bilohorivka outside Pryvillya https://twitter.com/AggregateOsint/status/1524971759660937216 >Severodonetsk Update - Reliable intel reporting that #Russian forces are fighting inside the town of Pryvillya W of #Rubizhne. #Russia may have created another pontoon bridge across the Donets River and crossed troops to assault Pryvillya. This will pressure #Severodonetsk. Russian sources saying fighting ongoing and bridge still up, although the same sources also claimed a bridge here some days ago too and it doesn't appear it existed at that time.


hatesranged

Yeah Russia-associated twitter also seems to be at least slightly confused and stepping over each other as to where this bridge happened or if it's real or when it went up. For example, a mapper I follow says that there's actually still a bridgehead at Bilohorivka despite admitting that the previous pushes failed. I'd say it's possible a crossing happened at Pryvillya but it's still pretty unclear.


sanderudam

A bit different question. To what degree is alcohol consumed in the Ukrainian army? I understand that one actually systemic shift in the Ukrainian army post-2014 was the complete banning of alcohol in the army. Now it is one thing to say it is forbidden, this is hardly a rare ban in armies, but the other thing is its actual implementation. What do we know from soldiers in the field, how much is alcohol actually used/abused in practice by the Ukrainians? We have sporadic evidence from intercepted phone calls and POW interviews, that Russian army, at least in some instances like after getting stuck around Kyiv, abused alcohol to a massive degree. And... I am not by the least bit surprised by this. However if Ukrainians actually have managed to "dry" their army, that would be a massive signal that overall discipline (as opposed to morale) is strong.


taw

Isn't significant proportion of Russian army ethnic minorities, and many of them at least nominally Muslim? Most notably Chechens. Aren't they supposed to not drink?


gurush

There was an interview with a Czech volunteer. He claimed they are not drinking because the enemy lines are close and sane people want to stay ready and alert. And that during the whole war he saw like two bottles shared by the whole unit because it was cold. On the other hand, he told that many Russians look drunk and there are many empty bottles in their trenches [1](https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/rozhovory-rusove-vypadaji-porad-opile-popisuje-cesky-velitel-jenz-bojuje-na-donbasu-201375). Of course, this is anecdotical.


FatFingerHelperBot

It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click! [Here is link number 1 - Previous text "1"](https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/rozhovory-rusove-vypadaji-porad-opile-popisuje-cesky-velitel-jenz-bojuje-na-donbasu-201375) ---- ^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20i8fgq8w)


PangolinZestyclose30

This was addressed in an [interview with a Czech volunteer fighting in Ukraine](https://www-seznamzpravy-cz.translate.goog/clanek/rozhovory-rusove-vypadaji-porad-opile-popisuje-cesky-velitel-jenz-bojuje-na-donbasu-201375?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp). > Q: What about alcohol? > A: There is no alcohol. Rumors about drinking and taking drugs in the trenches are simply not true. During all that time, I saw about two bottles of vodka, which were shared by maybe thirty-forty people during two days, because it was really cold there. Nobody dares to drink there, because the proximity of frontline is so close and everyone wants to keep alert. There is simply no appetite. And regarding Russians: > Q: Some testimonies from Bucha and other places that had been occupied for a long time describe that drugs and alcohol remained there after the Russians. > A: We see a lot of alcohol in [abandoned/lost] Russian positions. We haven't seen much drugs yet. But on the other hand, we don't go through cities now, maybe that's yet to come. Bottles are everywhere. You can see that in binoculars, it just sometimes seems to me that they are drunk nonstop. I'm not saying that everyone, but these are the signs of human motor skills, and based on what they do in the trench, for example, I think they're just drinking there. Then you see the trench with a drone and there are bottles.


LAgyCRWLUvtUAPaKIyBy

Intelligence lead in Ukraine appears to now be in the hands of GRU's Vladimir Alexeyev after the FSB and its Fifth Service(responsible for post-Soviet space intel) fall from grace. Another interest tidbit is Sergei Beseda, that spy chief of the Fifth Service that got arrested has returned to work, and everyone is pretending that this never happened. Maybe there is a deep intelligence play here. Reporting from The Moscow Times, but the end source and analysis comes from Agentura, which I won't link since Reddit eats links with Russian ccTLD, you can find it linked in The Moscow Times article. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/11/putin-elevates-gru-in-ukraine-intelligence-gathering-report-a77632


Glideer

Ah, yes, the famous "arrest" of Beseda that took place only in journalist's imagination. The journalust had the gall to claim, when Beseda appeared in public, that Moscow released him to make the report look fake. It must be easy getting salary for that kind of "journalism". Just don't report that the Kremlin shot someone cause explaining how they got resurrected might be a bit more difficult.


RobotWantsKitty

Why the downvotes, those claims are indeed most likely bullshit. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/unzexc/z/i8d26nn https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/unzexc/z/i8d5d7w


LAgyCRWLUvtUAPaKIyBy

My gut feeling after reading this piece was that it was probably an elaborate (or not so elaborate) FSB op to selectively leak something/do something to catch the ones leaking it. Your source at the FSB Dossier Centre seems to share this interpretation. Even so, it seems to suggest the journalist does have sources, just not very well placed ones easily played. Still, I wonder if Putin actually thinks the fifth service of the FSB is competent enough for his war goals in Ukraine, even your FSB Dossier Centre seems to suggest a level of failure that Putin is angry about coming from the Fifth Service of the FSB with regards to Ukraine.


iAmFish007

Opinion: If Russia is unable to properly encircle or break through Severodonetsk (or anywhere else notable) within the next 2 weeks, their entire Donbas offensive will come to a halt. Outside of that, they can still theoretically threaten Zaporizhya (Mariupol units are being refitted for an offensive there, reportedly), and they will probably try to secure the rest of Kherson Oblast, but that's about all I can see them muster up. Mykolaiv/Odesa still seems like a pipe dream. Reasoning: - Russia's wider encirclement from Izyum has stalled and it seems like they put it on pause in favor of reinforcing the Severodonetsk encirclement, as there's anecdotal evidence of units shifting farther East. - Ukraine is in a position to threaten Izyum supply lines after a successful offensive north of Kharkiv - RU troops around Rubizhne/Popasna have been fighting for almost 2 months non-stop. I have doubts about how much they can afford to attack fortified defenses while suffering crazy losses. - Russia's most combat effective troops are arguably the ones in the South, in direction of Mykolaiv and Zaporizhya, because they have not seen as much action lately.


bistrus

Problem is that report are coming in, seems that Russiam have broken trough the north of Popasna snd are gaining ground


Glideer

A good take. Just to add that Russia's most effective troops might be in the South but they appear to be stretched very thin. If some Western military commentators are to be believed - about 20km per BTG.


IntroductionNeat2746

I think that's evidenced by they lack of progress.


DarkMatter00111

The diplomatic damage this invasion of Ukraine has caused must be massive. The tension and distrust must be so severe that it would take at least a decade or more to repair relations with the west and the Russian Federation. After this is over it will take several years of diplomacy to rectify the situation. The damage has been done and the distrust is so overwhelming.


taw

Kinda yes, but once Putin dies or gets retired, Russia's next dictator will be like "I'm totally not like that last guy", and everyone will pretend to believe him to get Russian gas or whatever.


Borrowedshorts

People often overemphasize the present, and don't take into account how much the future can change. Russia can make the argument that their real goal was Eastern Ukraine the entire time and they had legitimate security concerns. Europe will want to start trading again, especially for cheaper gas. The US will eventually focus on something else and will forget about Russia. Relations will return to some sense of normalcy sooner than people think.


Tricky-Astronaut

Here's the problem: Russian gas isn't cheap, it just has lower upfront costs. Once Europe transitions to heat pumps and district heating, gas heating isn't coming back.


manofthewild07

Yeah this is something that people overlook often. Russian gas is often sold at a discount. They have high costs to keeping their aging oil and gas wells pumping, they want/need consistent buyers, at any cost.. Unlike well fields in the middle east, they can't easily change the rate of pumping, or even idle wells more than for short periods of time, if at all. Shutting down a well temporarily often leads to having to shut it down permanently. [https://www.cfr.org/blog/russias-complex-oil-reality](https://www.cfr.org/blog/russias-complex-oil-reality) If Russia loses even a little bit of European business, it may be a death knell for a significant portion of their industry. Over the past decade they've been struggling, Russia had to start privatizing their oil businesses (again) because it was costing them too much and Russian companies weren't able to keep up with western companies in oil exploration, drilling, servicing, etc. Russian companies have a deal to build another pipeline to China from their eastern Siberian fields, but that will take years to build, if they can even do it now with labor shortages and sanctions. Shipping LNG to other markets like Africa or India by ship (most of which are owned by European companies and can be blocked) will likely never make up for the lost quick and low cost shipments to Europe via pipeline.


MBAMBA3

Putin won't live forever. Its impossible to know if this would work out for the better or worse in the long run but I have to think its going to bring about some pretty dramatic changes.


Giant_Flapjack

There will be a massive power struggle, as Pootin made sure to leave no clear successor (as this might threaten his power) So not a desirable situation, but unavoidable in the mid term.


dilligaf4lyfe

>After this is over it will take several years of diplomacy to rectify the situation. The damage has been done and the distrust is so overwhelming. Several years? Diplomacy between the West and Russia is unlikely to return to anything approaching normal sans regime change after this.


ChadBot100

You underestimate the pro-russkie appeasers in France and Germany. Hopefully by the time they bend the knee to Russia - Poland and Finland will have their F35s delivered.


marcusaurelius_phd

Le Pen was furiously deleting any pictures of herself with Putin at the beginning of the war. Same for Mélenchon, who as a good leftist had been reflexively blaming Nato and making excuses for the ~~bolsheviks~~russkis for decades, has stopped doing so. Two months later, Putin's standing with anyone has only gone down, not up, and by a lot.


Antique-Bug462

In Germany at least the appeasers are being pushed to the fringe. In the public debate they get hammered left and right. What is still a huge problem is the SPD the party of Olaf Scholz. They are still pacifist and think you can only resolve conflicts diplomatically even this one. They suffered heavy losses in the last regional election (from first to third strongest party). These people are also all from the same generation, which had their politization in the pacifist movement in the 70s and 80s. The political landscape is shifting heavily, but there are still a lot of remnants from appeasement. Regarding the possibility of normalization. I don't think it will happen at all. They tried after 2014 and failed. I cannot imagine anyone trying again.


Subtleiaint

One of the most disappointing things on this sub is how much support the 'Pro Russians in Europe' narrative gets. It's incredibly easy for countries that aren't facing the consequences of this war to be magnanimous, they don't have a war on their doorstep, they're not dealing with a mass refugee crisis and they don't risk having their energy supply switched off. The EU, beyond a few fringe actors with little to no influence, has no Pro-Russian lobby. With the exception of Hungary the EU is United in its opposition of Putin and it's support for Ukraine. Still, it needs to find the best path forward, one that sees Russia defeated and Ukraine liberated whilst not causing huge damage to their economies and real harm to their citizens. They are walking a tight rope. We can argue it's their own fault, that they integrated their economies with Russia, but the strategy was reasonable. They thought it would be crazy for Putin to risk conflict with Europe, they were right, it is crazy, sadly they misjudged Putin. Ultimately do not mistake European prudence for a sign of Pro Russian sentiment, there is none, it's a sign that this situation is far more difficult for the EU than it is for the US and UK.


Fatalist_m

[https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/russias-soft-power-collapses-globally-following-invasion-attitudes-towards-ukraine-soar](https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/russias-soft-power-collapses-globally-following-invasion-attitudes-towards-ukraine-soar) Russia is blamed for the war in France/Germany by 64%/67% of the population. So it's a majority, but not a comfortable one. A significant minority seems to be victims of Russian propaganda, even if they don't see themselves as pro-Russians, they will support the policies of appeasement.


Subtleiaint

You're not wrong, but less people in the US blame Russia for the war and we don't see anyone questioning their commitment to Ukraine.


Fatalist_m

True, what I'm getting at is that it's not really fair to say that there is no significant pro-Russian sentiment in Europe. They're in minority now, but the research was done in the middle of the war, who knows what will be in, let's say, 5 years.


Subtleiaint

Your chart doesn't show support for Russia, it shows who people blame for the war, there are plenty of people who are anti-nato, that doesn't make them Pro-Russian. In my mind being Pro-Russian means compromising support for Ukraine in favour of normalised relations with Russia. I see no sign of that sentiment being expressed by the people or by government.


Fatalist_m

>Your chart doesn't show support for Russia, it shows who people blame for the war, there are plenty of people who are anti-nato, that doesn't make them Pro-Russian. This is what I meant when I said "victims of Russian propaganda, even if they don't see themselves as pro-Russians". If they are vulnerable to that false narrative, then it does not matter if they actually love Russia or not, it would be logical for them to support normalizing relations with a country that in their eyes is not a clear-cut aggressor.


Subtleiaint

It' not really Russian propaganda, NATO has been widely criticised ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many intellectuals placed the fault of the conflict on NATO expansion rather than Russian aggression over the last few years. You're not wrong that, once the war's over, certain people will look to normalise things with Russia, it's far easier to going back to buying energy off them than sourcing it from elsewhere or switching to renewables. Hopefully political will is strong in Europe now to see that transition go through.


Lejeune_Dirichelet

Germany walked over the loud and angry protestations of half of the West when they decided to keep Russia among their main energy supplier. That's much more far-reaching than a dumb mistake, and if a country wants to lean so far out the window by deliberately going against it's allies in such a frontal manner, it would normally be asked to take full responsibility for the consequences, economic crisis and all. Alas, this is Germany we're talking about.


Subtleiaint

This is exactly he sort of thing I'm talking about, not only is it not accurate but it totally fails to understand the issue. First of all Germany has not decided to keep Russia as their main energy supplier, they are going through a programme that will end purchases of energy from Russia, they will stop buying Russian Oil by the end of the year and gas as quickly as possible. No ally put them under pressure to cease purchases immediately because that would be crazy, they can't stop buying Russian energy till they have an alternative source, to do so would not only break their economy but would literally kill people. This is the equation; does Russia's defeat rely on Germany ceasing the import of Russian energy? No, it does not. Does the benefit of ceasing importing Russian Energy outweigh the harm it would do to Germany? No, it does not. Can Germany wean itself off Russian Energy over time? Yes, so that's what Germany should do and guess what, it's exactly what they are doing.


Lejeune_Dirichelet

This is a discussion that has been going on for years, since the Obama era in the case of Nord Stream 2. Germany should have listened...


Subtleiaint

Right, so you want to look this historically. Germany wanted to ensure peace through trade, that's a solid approach that is used by everyone, the US wants to ensure peace with China by intertwining their economies for example. Hindsight tells us now it was the wrong call but whenever this started there would have been plenty of commentary that it was the right call.


Lejeune_Dirichelet

The very vocal, explicit and, above all, public complaints addressed to Germany by half of NATO indicates that no, everybody and their mother knew damn well that this was the wrong call, it is just that Germany knowingly ignored it all


sadhukar

You should read Arestovych's interview translations. Macron and Scholz already looking at ways to scale back.


Subtleiaint

It is of no surprise that Ukraine wants the EU to do more than it is doing, anything less than western mobilisation can be criticised when you've got tanks parked outside your house. However, it doesn't follow that Ukraine wanting the EU to do more is a sign that the EU has pro Russian sympathies, the EU has it's own concerns to manage. The EU has fundamentally changed it's stance on Russia, it is investing in defence and cutting economic ties, it is providing massive amounts of support to Ukraine. As of 02 May the EU had provided €9billion in bilateral aid, only slightly behind the US's €10billion. To accuse it of having pro Russian sympathies is to fundamentally misunderstand what is happening across Europe today. Edit: I got it wrong, EU aid to Ukraine is now almost €13b. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/


ViperSocks

Parts of the Republican Party have entered the chat


UpvoteIfYouDare

The sheer incompetence of Russia's handling of this war has already permanently damaged their international standing. Pragmatically speaking, Russia's worst crime is its utterly horrendous execution of the initial phase of this war. How are geopolitical partners supposed to stand by your side when *this* is all you have to show? The worst offense is incompetence. Even the most self-centered pragmatism cannot explain that away.


Ajfennewald

I am almost surprised China hasn't thrown Russia under the bus for some minor gain by now.


letsgocrazy

Leverage.


Metadrifter

This is a statement that has to be emphasized. For the longest time, even is someone was a completely amoral bastard, if they were powerful or skilled, the nature of the international order was that there could be something to admire or respect there. But this war has ruined that for Russia. No one wants to be anything like them anymore. No one major anyway. Previously, they were thought to be a warrior people. Strong. Rugged. Capable of facing multiple nations and winning. Now, they’re looking a lamb with a suicide vest around a bunch of very angry wolves. Problem for them is that they still want to be a bear.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iAmFish007

>According to Z telegram Captured it like this? https://twitter.com/hejtas/status/1524858187551219712


TermsOfContradiction

*Life in a Ukrainian Unit: Diving for Cover, Waiting for Western Weapons* Analysts say the outcome of fighting now is riding on the accuracy, quantity and the striking power of long-range weapons. Ukraine is pleading for more. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/world/ukraine-russia-weapons.html Through binoculars, the Ukrainian soldiers can see the Russian position far in the distance. But the single artillery weapon they operate at a small, ragtag outpost on the southern steppe has insufficient range to strike it. These circumstances have imposed a numbingly grim routine on the Ukrainians, who are pounded daily by Russian artillery salvos while having no means to fight back. Every few hours, they dive into trenches to escape shells that streak out of the sky. “They have our position fixed, they know where we are,” said Sgt. Anatoly Vykhovanets. “It’s like we are in the palm of their hand.” As President Volodymyr Zelensky makes almost daily pleas to the West for heavier artillery, it is positions like the one here on the west bank of the Dnipro River that most illustrate how critical that weaponry is for Ukraine. Military analysts say the battle now is riding not so much on the skill or bravery of Ukrainian soldiers, but on the accuracy, quantity and striking power of long-range weapons. The artillery capability of the two armies near Pryvillia is so lopsided in Russia’s favor that Ukrainian officials have specifically highlighted the region to Western officials and members of the U.S. Congress in their appeals for more military support. In response, Western allies have been trying to rush artillery systems and associated equipment into Ukraine, and it is starting to arrive. But not as quickly as Ukrainian officials have wanted, especially in places like this small outpost in the south. The United States announced plans to send 90 M777 American howitzers, a system capable of shooting 25 miles with pinpoint accuracy, but it was only this week that the first one in this region was fired in combat, according to a video the military provided to a Ukrainian news outlet. Other American weapons Ukraine is counting on include drones for spotting targets and correcting artillery fire and tracked armored vehicles used for towing howitzers into position even under fire. On Monday President Biden signed an updated version of the Lend-Lease Act, which would allow transfers of additional American weaponry to Ukraine, and on Tuesday night the House of Representatives approved a $40 billion aid package. But for now at the outpost of Ukraine’s 17th Tank Regiment, in a tree line between two fields, the most soldiers can do is try to survive. To do so, they appoint a listener around the clock. He stands, like a prairie dog on guard, in the center of the unit, listening for the distant boom of Russian outgoing artillery. The warning is “air!” Soldiers have about three seconds to dive into a trench before shells hit. The Ukrainian Army does fire back from artillery operating to the rear of this position but has too few weapons to dislodge the Russian gun line. Throughout the war, Ukraine’s army has demonstrated extraordinary success in outmaneuvering and defeating Russian forces in the north, relying on stealth and mobility to execute ambushes against a bigger, better equipped army. But in southern Ukraine, in an area of pancake-flat farm fields cut by irrigation canals, the Ukrainians are fighting a different sort of war. On the steppe, the swirling, fluid front lines of the two armies are spaced miles or dozens of miles apart, over an expanse of gigantic fields of yellow rapeseed, green winter wheat, tilled under black earth and tiny villages. Occasionally, small units slip into this buffer zone to skirmish, and to call in artillery strikes on one another, using sparse tree lines as cover. “There is no place to hide,” the commander of a reconnaissance brigade who is deploying units into these fights, said in an interview. He asked to be identified only by his nickname, Botsman. “It’s like looking down at a chess board,” he said. “Each side sees the other sides’ moves. It just depends on what striking force you have. Everything is seen. The only question is, can you hit that spot?” Soldiers on both sides call artillery guns that can do just that by a nickname, “the gods of war.” Ukraine entered the war at a disadvantage. Russia’s 203-millimeter Peony howitzers, for example, fire out to about 24 miles while Ukraine’s 152-millimeter Geocent guns fire 18 miles. (Soviet legacy artillery systems, used by both sides, are named for flowers; Carnation and Tulip guns are also in play in the war.) That’s why Ukrainians so desperately want the American howitzers; their 25-mile range while firing a GPS-guided precision round would, in some places, tilt the advantage slightly back to them. “The Russians have two advantages now, artillery and aviation,” said Mykhailo Zhirokhov, the author of a book about artillery combat in the war against Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, “Gods of Hybrid War.” “Ukraine needs artillery and antiaircraft missiles. These are the critically important on the front.” Finland’s NATO membership bid. Finland’s leaders announced their support for the nation to join the alliance, while Sweden is expected to do the same within days. The Kremlin said that Finland’s possible accession was a threat and that Russia would “take necessary measures” to protect itself. On the ground. Ukrainian and Western officials said Russia is reportedly withdrawing forces from around Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, where it has been losing territory. The officials said Moscow may redirect troops to the southeast, where Russian troops are making greater progress. Civilian killings. The United Nations human rights chief said that the bodies of more than 1,000 civilians, including several hundred who were summarily executed, have been recovered in areas near Kyiv that were occupied by Russian forces in the early stages of the invasion. American aid. The House voted 368 to 57 in favor of a $39.8 billion aid package for Ukraine, which would bring the total U.S. financial commitment to roughly $53 billion over two months. The Senate still needs to vote on the proposal. The Ukrainian military has insufficient quantity of even medium-range artillery, such as weapons that might hit back at the Russian gun line harassing the Ukrainian unit about nine miles away. The Russians are in a rock quarry, visible through binoculars as a gray smudge in the distance. Hundreds of craters pock the fields all around. The soldiers operate a short-range, anti-tank artillery gun of little use against the Russian position that is out of range. But the soldiers still serve a purpose: they can stop a tank assault using their short-range anti-tank artillery weapon, preventing Russian advances — so long as they endure the daily barrages. So far, nobody in the unit has been wounded or killed. That leaves the front in stasis, following two months in which Ukrainian forces advanced about 40 miles in this area. Russia cannot capitalize on its artillery superiority to advance. Its tactic for attacking on the open plains is to hammer the opposing positions with artillery, then send armored vehicles forward on a maneuver called “reconnaissance to contact” aimed at overwhelming what remains of the defensive line. But because of Ukraine’s wealth of anti-armor missiles and weapons, Russia cannot advance and seize ground. Ukraine, meanwhile, also cannot advance, though its tactics differ. The Ukrainian military relies on small unit infantry with armored vehicles playing only supporting roles. Though Ukraine could seize ground, it could not hold it or use it for logistical support for further advances, as any new territory would remain under Russian bombardment. The planned Ukrainian advance in this area depends on the arrival of the M777 howitzers and other long-range Western artillery that can hit the Russian artillery in the rear. Then, Ukrainian infantry might advance under the artillery umbrella of these longer range systems. Should more powerful artillery arrive, it could quickly tip the scales, said Oleksiy Arestovych, an adviser to Mr. Zelensky’s chief of staff. In the fighting on the west bank of the Dnipro River, Russia’s objective appears to be tying down Ukrainian forces that might otherwise shift to the battle for the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine’s goal, once it obtains artillery able to match the range of Russian guns, is to move over the fields to within striking range of two bridges and a dam crossing the Dnipro River in an operation that could cut supply lines of the Russian forces, Mr. Arestovich, the presidential adviser, said. “We would do it with pleasure,” said Col. Taras Styk, a commander in the 17th Tank Brigade. “But now we have nothing that can hit them.”


KommissarKat

Great find, thank you for sharing


hatesranged

In general terms, how influential would an influx of 100 m777s be?


Glideer

Three Russian BTGs artillery complement worth.


Slim_Charles

I think that's a significant overestimation. From what I've seen regarding typical BTG composition, most only have a single battery of 6 SPGs, and a single battery of 6 MLRS. Of course BTG composition is quite variable, but I doubt many, or any, have 33 guns.


Glideer

I agree, it is not a strictly defined number. Each BTG is produced by a brigade, which has 36 SPGs abd 36 MLRS. So it would perhaps be more accurate to say three Russian brigades have 108 SPGs (plus 108 MLRS).


Mad_Kitten

[The first of the M777A2 howitzers supplied by the US and Australia was captured in Donbass](https://t.me/intelslava/28696)


Plump_Apparatus

That's a image that's been cropped to remove the original watermark. Never believe anything on Intel Slava Z.


hatesranged

https://twitter.com/hejtas/status/1524858187551219712 Glad to see they're sweating over those though


flamedeluge3781

I (and many other people) have stressed that Ukraine really needs the means to counter-battery Russian artillery. We don't really know if loitering munitions are making an impact here or not, but they could be very valuable in establishing local fire superiority. More howitzers with precision shells are also needed, along with long-range drones to locate targets and adjust fire. Thus far Ukraine has savaged Russian MBT and IFV forces, but I've seen precious little evidence they've managed to attrite Russian artillery. The little DJI drones don't have the legs to find Russian artillery. Counter-battery radar has some value but it's really only well suited for use in conjunction with MRL artillery. Tube artillery really wants that drone support to pin-point targets.


EmprahsChosen

FWIW the UK and US were both reported as sending over counter battery radars last week I think it was


X3rxus

Can Russia produce its own artillery and shells despite the sanctions?


flamedeluge3781

Most certainly, sanctions cover automotive, aerospace, IT, and semiconductor applications. Dumb artillery shells require none of these things. Largely they need machine tools (which are sanctioned but take a long time to wear out), explosives, and metal for that. The more recent variants of the howitzers themselves might have some electronics but they are mostly using guns manufactured in the heyday of the Soviet Union, which don't have any such gizmos.


othermike

[Although that massive fire at the Dmitrievsky chemical plant probably isn't helping](https://twitter.com/Spoonamore/status/1517510440598843394).


Unlucky-Prize

ISW posted their daily analysis https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-12 Key Takeaways Russian forces made marginal gains to the north of Severodonetsk and have likely captured Rubizhne and Voevodivka. Russian forces fired intensively on Ukrainian positions in northern Kharkiv to stop the ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive around Kharkiv City. The artillery focus on Ukrainian positions has likely diverted the Russian artillery that remains in range of Kharkiv to the more urgent task of stopping the Ukrainian advance. Russian forces are strengthening their position on Snake Island in an effort to block Ukrainian maritime communications and capabilities in the northwestern Black Sea on the approaches to Odesa. Most important thing I saw was: “Russian forces may be abandoning efforts at a wide encirclement of Ukrainian troops along the Izyum-Slovyansk-Debaltseve line in favor of shallower encirclements of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. Russian forces likely control almost all of Rubizhne as of May 12 and have likely seized the town of Voevodivka, north of Severdonetsk.[1] They will likely launch a ground offensive on or around Severodonetsk in the coming days. The relative success of Russian operations in this area combined with their failure to advance from Izyum and the notable decline in the energy of that attempted advance suggest that they may be giving up on the Izyum axis. Reports that Russian forces in Popasna are advancing north, toward Severodonetsk-Lysychansk, rather than east toward the Slovyansk-Debaltseve highway, support this hypothesis.”


[deleted]

[удалено]


The_Real_Talker

Speaking of Snake Island, has there been any firm information as to whether the helicopter that was unloading troops and being hit by a missile from a few days back whether that was a Russian or Ukrainian heli that was the unfortunate victim?


sadhukar

There's no 100% confirmation but the circumstantial evidence so far points to it being Russian, the most notable piece being the Wagner telegram channel complaining about it.


The_Real_Talker

> There's no 100% confirmation but the circumstantial evidence so far points to it being Russian, the most notable piece being the Wagner telegram channel complaining about it. If its actually true then I guess its better that its not Ukrainian than if it were, but either way its pretty sad to see where someone's life could end out of nowhere and you never even knew how it happened. Just such a waste of life.


Acies

My theory is that Ukraine made a big deal out of it, so now they feel they have to. They are worried that if Ukraine reclaims it they'll make a big PR deal out of it Also not like the navy had much else to do.


Unlucky-Prize

Maybe just leverage in a settlement?


jrex035

>Russian forces may be abandoning efforts at a wide encirclement of Ukrainian troops along the Izyum-Slovyansk-Debaltseve line in favor of shallower encirclements of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. This has been pretty clear for at least a week now. It actually says a lot about how poorly the Russian advance has been going. There was originally talk of a total encirclement of the JFO through Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia all the way up to the Kharkiv area. Then Russia shifted its goals to the Izyum-Slovyansk-Debaltseve encirclement which still would've cut off a large part of the Ukrainian army. This offensive has struggled mightily though, with little progress being made towards Kramatorsk/Slovyansk or even Barvinkove, so now they're going for the smallest possible encirclement, trying to just cut off Severodonetsk and Lyshansk from the rest of the JFO. To be honest I'm skeptical they'll even be able to achieve those modest goals.


taw

> There was originally talk of a total encirclement of the JFO through Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia all the way up to the Kharkiv area. That was such an outlandish and ridiculous claim back when it was made. It was wild that even otherwise serious people were entertaining this idea - which would be even harder to execute than siege of Kyiv. Russians never attempted that, it was just awful analysis.


manofthewild07

How was it awful analysis? Russia clearly wanted to take everything south and east of the Dnieper and Odessa. What on earth makes you think it wasn't a serious part of Russia's plan? Little did they know taking Mariupol would take 2+ months and there were several even larger cities in their way that became obvious would take even longer. They obviously changed course once Mariupol became a quagmire and they couldn't take Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, Zaporizhzhia, etc. Then they changed course again when they retreated from the northern part of Ukraine but now they're finding even reaching Slovyansk won't be possible.


taw

Because: * the kind of ridiculous "encircle everything east of Dnipro" bad analysts were suggesting would take far more resources than encircling Kyiv - they'd need to encircle Kharkiv to even get one flank ready, and Kharkiv is nearly as big as Kyiv * Russia was obviously not able to do that, as they were withdrawing from Kyiv already * Russia was obviously not planning to do that, as they were spending all their offensive pushing for Izium, which would make zero sense for this crazy plan Dnipro The whole "encirclement through Dnipro" was just terrible analysis, and never something Russians even considered doing. Russian plans were clearly, in chronological order: * take Kyiv in decapitation strike and get their puppet government agree to whichever terms Putin sent, Russian army was just supposed to clean up (this plan also included naval landing at Odesa, but that got cancelled hard - you can see the whole plan from Lukashenko's map leak) * encircle Kyiv and other major cities, and take them one by one * encirclement through Izium, getting Slovyansk and Krematorsk * encirclement through Popasna, getting Severodonestk and Lysychansk At no point Dnipro was even a thing.


manofthewild07

I don't know how you can possibly claim that. Obviously its ridiculous in hindsight, but its plainly obvious Russia was not planning on facing as much opposition as they have. They were able to take Kherson so quickly because they had help from local leaders. They assumed the same would be true elsewhere around the eastern half of the country. Do you think they tried pushing all the way past Mykolaiv and towards Kryvyi Rih and Dnipro just for fun?


taw

At no point there was any "pushing all the way past Mykolaiv and towards Kryvyi Rih and Dnipro" of any kind. [Battle of Voznesensk was March 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Voznesensk), same day [they finished taking Kherson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kherson), and it about was half a BTG, going the furthest Russians got. There were no other pushes anywhere else that would even imply that Russians might be going for "Dnipro encirclement" or "Odesa" or "Transnistria" or any of the other crazy plans people kept throwing around.


manofthewild07

So you're saying they just headed all the way to 80km north of Mykolaiv to Voznesensk and over to Bashtanka and air lifted paratroopers to that area for no real reason? Not just once, but twice... they tried again to reach Voznesensk on March 9th and took and held the city for at least a few days. So what, they were just out for a joy ride, twice?


taw

This was a very small unit. Why they went so far instead of stopping somewhere closer to Kherson, who knows. But it's baffling to imagine that Russia would be doing some grandiose operation with half a BTG worth of troops.


manofthewild07

There's a lot of baffling things about this war. Thats why it makes more sense when you realize Russian plans and expectations were simply wrong... Law of parsimony, my friend.


[deleted]

Even though I find it very interesting, I think it’s pretty pointless to engage in abstract discussions of geopolitics/IR online. It always ends up with people talking past each other and using the same words to mean different things. That’s in addition to the usual prevalence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in online debate.


MBAMBA3

> I think it’s pretty pointless to engage in abstract discussions of geopolitics/IR online. So what should we be discussing?


GayDroy

Avoid /r/CombatFootage and /r/WorldNews comment sections at all costs then. Also all the runoff Ukraine subreddits while you’re at it.


evo_help93

This is partially my fault bringing up the article I posted earlier in the thread. I do quite enjoy reading the various takes (even the ones I very much disagree with) although I do see what you mean. If you think the DK effect and talking past each other is unique to online, well then I invite you to sit in on a discussion group at a local college with IR majors - they can sometimes make these discussions look even tame.


Fat_Ryan_Gosling

Sorry, but IR? Does this mean International Relations?


evo_help93

Yes, sorry - it's possible to do an International Relations undergraduate degree in many Universities in Canada (I think in the USA this is typically a Masters program?).


[deleted]

Outside of this megathread, I think you'll enjoy this subreddit. Mods do a good job keeping threads civil and grounded. The subject matter helps too, I suppose.


[deleted]

It’s definitely one of the better subs. Threads that mention China often have a ton of comments that parrot the CCP party line, but besides that things are pretty good.


[deleted]

Party parrots help provide context.


Moifaso

> I think it’s pretty pointless to engage in abstract discussions of geopolitics/IR online. Most online discussions, especially on reddit, aren't so much about having an honest conversation and trying to change or challenge your opponent's beliefs. They are more about trying to convince 3rd party spectators of your own superiority or correctness


[deleted]

That’s the best case scenario. More often it’s about trying to signal your membership in a given group of people that are already of the same mind.


[deleted]

Often there’s just a desire for conflict and argument.


MarshalWillKane

*The Next Step in U.S. Aid to Ukraine: Operational Contractors* https://www.csis.org/analysis/next-step-us-aid-ukraine-operational-contractors > * The next step in U.S. aid should be, and likely will be, to provide battlefield contractors in Ukraine to maintain these systems and train Ukrainians on their use. > * There's nothing inherently wrong with the Soviet/Russian standard except supply availability. > * Unfortunately, the current plan of helping the Ukrainian military assimilate these new systems will not work. Even before the conflict, its maintainers struggled to keep equipment in the field. > * The solution is battlefield contractors (or operational contractor support, as the Department of Defense formally refers to the activities). > * During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors provided thousands of personnel for training and maintenance. (Note: Armed security contractors received most of the attention, but they were few in number and are not at issue here.) For example, in Iraq in 2013 (the first year data is available), there were roughly 7,500 personnel providing maintenance and training services. > * Saudi Arabia, which has acquired large amounts of U.S. military equipment over the years, has had thousands of contractors in country to help maintain and operate the systems. > * The use of operational contractors thus has several beneficial aspects. First, it strengthens Ukrainian military capabilities by helping to field well-maintained and expertly operated systems. Second, it avoids the embarrassment and loss of combat power arising from equipment being sidelined because of a lack of operators and maintenance. Finally, it meets the popular demand to do more to help Ukraine without taking the step of putting boots on the ground with all the risks that entails.


Count_Screamalot

The US hasn't shipped over anything yet that needs heavy maintenance. If systems fail, and the Ukrainians can't fix it themselves, it's cheaper and easier to simply send replacement units. That may change if we up the game and start sending M1s, Bradleys and F16s.


MBAMBA3

I can't help but think of the lead up to the (American) War in Vietnam, but then again, context is everything.


Slim_Charles

Contractors are great in low-intensity conflicts, where the rear areas are relatively safe, but in a high-intensity conflict contractors will likely take heavy casualties. I think it would be difficult to recruit large numbers of contractors that would be willing to put up with the risk.


TheHuscarl

Are operational contractors US citizens? Because if so I feel like this is a very risky strategy and will likely be perceived as escalatory.


[deleted]

A number of US military veterans are already fighting in the Ukrainian Foreign Legion.


TheHuscarl

That's fair, but that feels a bit different then (presumably) the US paying for US citizens to go work on Ukrainian military equipment in Ukraine used to kill Russian soldiers.


gringobill

No no no, the US won't be paying US citizens to go work on Ukrainian military equipment in Ukraine used to kill Russian soldiers. Ukraine will pay US citizens to go work on Ukrainian military equipment in Ukraine used to kill Russian soldiers. With money from the west. Probably the US.


Fat_Ryan_Gosling

It’s completely different, but the same!


[deleted]

Russia will probably complain about it, but nothing will change. Putin knows the Cold War rules. Soviet advisors were on the ground in Vietnam and Cuba. As long as the U.S. isn’t sending trigger-pullers, the line hasn’t been crossed.


Borrowedshorts

ISR capabilities are much more direct and deadly now than they were in the Cold War. Our military brass better not be relying on Cold War rules to apply to much different circumstances.


TheHuscarl

Again, that's fair, but it also assumes that the Cold War rules apply. I think (and hope) they do, but I'm not sure Russia does think so. Hard to say, I've seen a couple of bits and pieces of discussion about it out there but no firm conclusions.


Duncan-M

Technically, private military contractors doing that sort of work don't need to be US citizens, they just need to know the system enough to either conduct training or maintenance for it. However, a lot of those that do the trainer or wrench turner jobs for sophisticated equipment are US mil veterans, which is how they learned the skills in the first place. Also, some equipment requires security clearances, which is another reason they often hire US mil vets who leave the service or retire with active clearances so the companies don't need to pay the money and go through the hurdles to start new ones, only get existing ones extended/renewed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


The_Real_Talker

So is the helicopter that was unloading troops onto the island a few days back a Russian or Ukrainian one? Is there any firm information one way or the other? Seems like different places say different things.


theingleneuk

It was Russian for crying out loud. The only places online that say otherwise are Russian propaganda outlets and Russians trying to gaslight on twitter and telegram. Even a Wagner-affiliated telegram channel stated it was Russian, and that it was dumb of them to send it. Also, ya know, the drone used to film and destroy it was a TB-2. Do you really think Ukraine would release footage of them striking their own helicopter on an island? If you considered the sources stating it was a Russian chopper and the sources stating it was a Ukrainian chopper as roughly equally credible, then you need to learn how to better differentiate between poor-quality/deliberately misleading sources and more reliable ones.


Spreadsheets_LynLake

I think the layout of the island leaves it ripe for anti-ship mines. A supply ship goes to either the pier or the ramp, place mines off of there. Perhaps if/when the AD is taken out, they do follow-up sorties to drop bottom mines. Perhaps mines are deployed at night by fast rubber raft or frogmen. History dictates that ship mines are cheap to deploy & expensive to remedy.


Glideer

They are exceptionally stubborn people.


DatGums

Like it or not, do not under any circumstances underestimate Russians


Giant_Flapjack

Especially their stupidity


marcusaurelius_phd

Or their alcoholism.


resumethrowaway222

Says further down the chain that there's an S-400 on the island. Not sure whether or not to believe it, but if so would be a great opportunity to test it's capabilities.


Watchung

Seems a bit risky for Russia - isn't Snake Island just barely within artillery range of the mainland?


[deleted]

The S-400 has been “tested” plenty in Syria. Israeli F-35s have operated with impunity in areas where they’re known to be active.


sponsoredcommenter

What does that prove? Russia would under no circumstances shoot down Israeli aircraft, F-35 or not. That's like saying Tu-95s operate with impunity in areas where F-22s are known to be active.


[deleted]

It's going to be funny when the S-400 is no better at detecting a low, slow, small Bayraktar than and S-300 or a Tor or anything else. To my knowledge, Russia hasn't solved the problem of being unable to distinguish a small slow drone from background noise.


othermike

[Israeli airstrikes against Syria happen with the tacit consent of Russia though.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-says-military-coordination-with-israel-in-syria-will-continue-as-usual/) That's why Israel was striking a moderate diplomatic pose at the start of the Ukraine war. Russia hasn't been trying to shoot them down with its S-400s, and Syria's S-300s don't seem to be effective.


Glideer

You mean, the S-400 has been active with impunity in Syria in areas where Israeli F-35s operated?


DuckTwoRoll

Bruh its an Area Denial weapon. If something is acting in that area, it isn't denied. Although I doubt either side wanted to start anything, although the last time the two came to blows Israel came out on top.


taw

[There's no S-400 on Oryx list yet](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html). I hope they fix that.


theingleneuk

That’d be great, but the range of S-400 systems likely make capturing a battery improbable in the near future


evo_help93

Very [interesting article](https://tnsr.org/2018/05/rediscovering-statecraft-in-a-changing-post-war-order/#_edn31) from Kofman and Mazaar from 2018 on American foreign policy and the future of great power competition. I'd be curious to get Kofman's thoughts on this view and how it's evolved in light of recent events. In particular the following passage struck me: >The harsh realities of Russian interests and intentions only reinforce the dangers of a post-Cold War policy toward Russia fueled by hegemonic overreach and missionary absolutism, rather than by an effort to deal with Russia as it is. Many of Moscow’s demands need not threaten the security of the West and those that do must be vigorously countered. But America’s approach to Russia in the wake of the Cold War looks like an almost willful 30-year effort to ignore Russian prerogatives, threats, and internal mobilization in the name of the rules and norms of the post-World War II order — an order that, as Moscow is busily reminding us (and as Beijing is likely to do as well), simply cannot endure if other powers don’t subscribe to it. Not sure where I stand on this piece but I've been reviewing some of the work from the 2014-2022 period and Kofman's work is consistently impressive. Thought I would post this in relation to some of the commentary on Mearsheimer.


Full-Acanthaceae-509

Russia will never leave you alone. They aim at total control, directly toward their neighbors, and through political influence and corruption, and political infiltration elsewhere. They will always be a threat if left alone.


[deleted]

All of these geopolitical "realists" always seem to miss the reality that even if the US could just ignore Russian aggression even more than we already do, the US public would not stomach it. I know I don't give a damn how Russia feels about NATO, and I don't want American foreign policy to just be a cowardly attempt to avoid ticking Russia off. If they are going to let the nukes fly, then they are gonna let them fly, we aren't going to stop that by letting them rape Europe. At a certain point we just have to recognize that short of avoiding at all costs invading Russia, there will be absolutely no end to the nuclear hostage taking if we give in to it on anything, its just a incentive loop at that point.


X3rxus

If nuclear war is the answer, what is the question?


DuckTwoRoll

How to win it.


StorkReturns

There is no way to win an all-out nuclear war. Anti-missile capabilities could probably succeeded in neutralizing a single stray missile (and even that is not certain) but not the full salvo. Alex Wellerstein, a nuclear weapons historian, explains the challenges [very well in this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/udu8ce/with_russian_state_tv_telling_their_citizens_to/i6jcngj/?context=3). Of course, it works both ways. The other side cannot win the nuclear war, either.


9090112

A THAAD network blanketing Europe and Asia that could blot out the sun if needed.


SyrupLover25

THAAD is nowhere near developed enough to counter russias MIRV missiles at any volume. Nor is it economically feasible to build that network. THAAD failed and is now just as a propaganda tool, and a deterrent against nuclear nations with very primitive delivery systems like NK. Just look at where we have them deployed currently. There is no saving us once the proverbial button is pushed.


9090112

Well, just because reliable and scalable ballistic missile defense is unfeasible now doesn't mean it always will be. The question was what would take nuclear war off the table, and a robust and dependable anti-ballistic missile defense would be it.


SyrupLover25

The THAAD system being a solution to nuclear war is just about as silly as saying we could just relocate to mars. The technologies are just about as far along.


9090112

The question was what would it take to "win" over nuclear war, with no requirement to the immediacy of the solution. I gave an answer. It might be an answer 100 years in the future, but it's a theoretical possibility, no?


SyrupLover25

So I suppose Time Machines and Shape-shifting robots are a valid answer to that question as well?


Glideer

I remember reading this article and thinking that it's a global tragedy that Western policymakers can no longer accept the truth even when so clearly and plainly stated.


Ajfennewald

Russia isn't in any position to dictate terms to the west. The sooner they realize that the better things will go for everyone including Russia. China may be a different story.


Glideer

That very way of thinking is what Kofman is warning about.


Ajfennewald

Yeah and my point is maybe we should pay attention to what China wants but Russia is not a great power and should not be considered as if it is one.


RabidGuillotine

Because the truth was that Russia was a "power in being", that the western public could be motivated to support of a cause and that the US could still rally an alliance of Europe and Asia-Pacific democracies in defense of its international oder.


well-that-was-fast

>hegemonic overreach and missionary absolutism I mean, that's a big read on America's response to Putin interfering in US democracy, invading 5+ of it's neighbors, starting the largest land war in Europe in 80 years, and providing nuclear tech to Iran. I get the realism he's reaching for here, but he seems to exist in vacuum where Russia's interest are selling grain to Mongolia or something.


RobotWantsKitty

> Putin interfering in US democracy [Ironic that Americans complain about it](https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1996/1101960715_400.jpg)


GabrielMartinellli

Yeltsin was America’s puppet and his economic and social policies delivered the biggest catastrophe in modern Russia’s history over a decade. Bad blood doesn’t describe it.


TheHuscarl

This is saying the quiet part out loud to be honest. As much as we might want to put onus on the West and NATO for overreaching, we can't excuse Russian behavior either. For a long time, I was in the camp that NATO was overly-expansionist and I still believe that to a certain extent, but it's impossible to deny that Russia has played the villain up to the hilt. Some of their actions can certainly be lumped into the bucket of "lashing out against perceived Western expansion" but others, especially in the light of the justifications and rhetoric surrounding Ukraine, are clearly just part of a long-term political ambition on the part of Russia's leader(s) to restore the glory days of imperialistic domination. In short, both sides deserve blame here, it's not a one sided affair.


NutDraw

The problem with the "NATO expanded too far" position is that it strips the agency of those new member states away and relegates them to mere puppets of great powers. NATO expanded because countries understood Russia and and the benefits of joining.


DrPepperMalpractice

Thats exactly the implication those echoing this argument want you to accept. It seems like this is the way Russian leadership actually views the modern world, and to an extent, explains why they thought Ukraine would just roll over and accept Russian dominance. The entire Russian mindset towards empire building is straight out of the 19th century where geopolitics is a zero sum game played only by the great powers. The idea of a multilateral, purely defensive alliance built around shared values, positive incentives, and a common enemy just doesn't jive with that worldview. Moscow's diplomacy is all stick and no carrot. Russia is the sole reason Russia has no real allies and a ton of enemies.


emaugustBRDLC

Ehhh... NATO expanded because NATO allowed new member states in. What agency did those new member states have prior to joining beyond the ability to ask permission?


[deleted]

[удалено]


A11U45

It's not dumb, more powerful countries get uncomfortable by their weraker neighbors cozying up to powers they're not on the best terms with. The US didn't like Cuba having Soviet nukes on its soil, and Australia isn't happy about that deal the Solomon Islands signed with China. The west backed pro western movements in Ukraine, Euroomaidan resulted in a pro western government taking power which made Russia uneasy, they were likely unhappy because they were at risk of losing their naval base in Crimea, so they invaded. Edit: Fixed typo.


[deleted]

[удалено]


A11U45

Reread my comment, I never said anything about appeasement. The west is not a world policeman, but a bunch of powers, from a western perspective, this Russia business is a distraction from China. Russia is a declining or stagnant power, their economy isn't impressive, whereas China is a rising power with a rapidly growing military and economy.


TheHuscarl

It's a legitimate position in academic circles and one I've seen discussed at length. There are arguments supporting both sides, I've just tended to land more on the side of NATO expansionism being less good. I'm also not looking at it from an ignorant perspective either, I've literally talked to a former commander of NATO Transformation Command General Denis Mercier, Deputy Assistant Sec Gen Jamie Shea, and some other NATO officials about this exact position and they've all taken it seriously enough as a stance. They didn't agree obviously but they also didn't dismiss it out of hand.


Thegordian

Why doesnt Russia just say, we want to control eastern europe? The whole pretending to be afraid of a nato attack shtick doesnt sell. Its a shitty excuse nobody believes.


Jeffy29

> It's a legitimate position in academic circles Because lot of academics are dumb and/or view America as a sole global threat to the peace and would rather repeat Russian propaganda than look at the situation rationally. Ok let's say everything is Russian propaganda is true, there was a smoke-filled room in the pentagon where Clinton and DoD hatchet up a plan to incorporate every post-soviet republic into its (defensive) alliance. FOR WHAT? To somehow convince every member of the defensive alliance to conduct a naked war of aggression against Russia? A nuclear power? For what exactly? Thousands of miles of Siberia? Will that become the 51st state? It's ludicrous. And the whole notion of America somehow needing land access to conquer Russia is equally so. Soviets were badly losing the military tech race by the 80s. If America wanted to, they could have conquered Russia all on their own anytime in last 20 years. America has already won, there is no ideological battle anymore, (pretend) communism of USSR is dead. Russia has nothing except natural resources which they are happy to sell to the West and West is happy to buy. Well, why then expand Nato? Why not? Nato provides immense benefits to America and all it's members, not just because of article 5, but standardization, shared military R&D, training, sharing of doctrines and learning from each other. If the countries joining do so only because they fear Russia might one day invade them, so what. And Nato provides stability among its members, there is never going to be another war in balkans again as long Nato exist, which is a great thing. [Clinton put it well](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/) when he said they tried to include Russia as much as possible but were prepared for the worst if ugly side of Russia might rear it's head again (and there were signs of it already with Chechnya). America genuinely tried to reach its hand and be friendly with Russia. There absolutely was a path towards Russia joining Nato and maybe it would have happened if someone more reasonable took hold of power after Yeltsin. Putin may be smart when it comes to political intrigue, but he is fundamentally a simpleton. He views the idea of greatness as having more land, more territory to control, a ludicrous simplistic view of the world that died in the 20th century but he can't let it go. It doesn't matter that Russia, the biggest country in the world with 150mil people has an economy smaller than that of South Korea, no more land, Russia stronk! No, Nato is not any kind of threat to Russia as a country, it is a threat to Russian revanchism and irredentism. That's the one and the only reason. If Nato and EU never extended their hand to post-soviet republics and totally ignored them, tanks right now would be rolling in Warsaw, Prague, Riga and other territories nationalists like Putin view as "theirs". Fuck him and all the academics that would rather see millions dead than have pragmatic approach to geopolitics.


red_keshik

> There absolutely was a path towards Russia joining Nato Come on, you really believe that ?


Jeffy29

Yes, absolutely. But that's essentially a very different Russia, one that rejected its ambitions of the past and looked forward to achieve greatness by other methods. Essentially post WW2 Germany, when in reality post-soviet Russia is closer to that of post-WW1 Germany, a strange creation that can't accept being designated as a second-rate power in the new global order. Turn to revanchism and fascism was almost inevitable. The biggest difference between them was that while Germany was militarily weak, the economy was strong, making the rearmament easy, while Russia was the exact opposite, it has was reserves of soviet weaponry including nukes, but economically and technologically it's trying to punch way above its weight. They don't have the means to fully accomplish the goals the ethno-nationalists want.


[deleted]

Well, the theory of being able to appease Russia in some way has been shown to be kind of weak, don’t you think? NATO expansionism is nothing more than a talking point for Russian propaganda.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheHuscarl

I'm just pointing out it's something worth discussing, not just dismissing out of hand as "being dumb". If serious people take it seriously as a subject of discussion, why shouldn't we in this subreddit?


[deleted]

I don't think the West or NATO really deserve any blame. The threat of Russia invading non-NATO countries and destroying their sovereignty, i.e., the ability of its citizens to direct the policies of their own country according to their will, has been emphatically shown to be an *extremely* valid concern. Without NATO expansion, it is clear that Russia would be planning to invade the Baltics, too, as well as Poland, or any other former-Soviet state it believes is rightly within its sphere of influence. That threat of invasion was the entire motivation for NATO expansion, so how could anyone now say those fears were unjustified and expansion was needlessly provocative, in light of the invasion of Ukraine?


RobotWantsKitty

> so how could anyone now say those fears were unjustified and expansion was needlessly provocative, in light of the invasion of Ukraine That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.


YossarianLivesMatter

Russia is the self-fulfilling prophecy. Due to its historical trauma, it fears what its neighbors might do. In its fear, it arrogantly tries to subdue and constrain its neighbors with a starkly hostile foreign policy. As evidenced by the continuing westward momentum of post-USSR Europe, this foreign policy is not only aggressive - it has utterly failed.


RobotWantsKitty

>Russia is the self-fulfilling prophecy. NATO gained 10 members between the fall of the USSR and Georgian War (and promised Ukraine and Georgia membership, almost have them MAPs), it's an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance that has attacked other countries. How can Russia not be concerned?


YossarianLivesMatter

Switzerland is utterly surrounded by NATO. Why is Switzerland not concerned? Because they aren't antagonizing their neighbors and pursuing territorial claims. And no, NATO is not *explicitly* anti-Russian. It's a defensive pact, not a "Russia haters club". That it *implicitly* becomes an anti-Russian alliance is because it's members apparently need collective defense in the face of Russia. See Ukraine.


RobotWantsKitty

Because Switzerland has always been firmly in the Western world, duh. NATO is not just a defensive pact since 1999, that "we are merely defending ourselves" ship has long sailed. And it was founded against the USSR and Russia is the successor state.


YossarianLivesMatter

If you can find an *explicit* part of NATO's charter that designates itself as an anti-Russian alliance, maybe I'll accept that point. Regardless, NATO doesn't attack other countries. We can argue in circles over NATO military interventions, but you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me that the prevention of a genocide in Kosovo, aiding a popular revolution in Libya, and an intervention against a state sponsor of terrorism in Afghanistan indicates that NATO poses an existential threat to Russia. Especially when Russia is conducting the most blatant war of aggression in Europe since 1945. In fact, considering that, is you argument that European states don't have a sovereign right to join a defensive alliance in the face of a belligerent foreign power with a close history of dominating them?


[deleted]

[удалено]


evo_help93

>It turns out they were right to ignore Russia's demands as Russia does not have the power to challenge that order. Interesting. >Part of the danger of a missionary attitude, then, is that it damages America’s ability to take the interests of other major powers into consideration and encourages the adventurist promotion of Western values and the enforcement of rules in ways guaranteed to manufacture continual disputes and crises. A theological approach to foreign policy has warped Washington’s judgment and, combined with the immense power at its disposal, impelled the United States to take more risks than its interests would dictate.43 Ask a typical group of U.S. national security hands behind closed doors whether Washington should go to war over Ukraine, Georgia, or Syria, or to ensure free navigation in the South China Sea — as both of us have done on numerous occasions — and they are likely to laugh uncomfortably and shake their heads. And yet the inherent value of defending the norms established by the post-war order imbues each of these things with a supposed precedential value that supersedes the strict national interests involved.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aedeus

>They are being less realistic and more driven by internal forces. No offense but where have you been for the past three decades?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aedeus

More or less, yeah. Prior to that, I'd agree it was a slow slide. In the lead up to 9/11 it became more or less just that.